Justia.com Opinion Summary:
Lakeside appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Producers on Lakeside's state-law claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment involving payment for the feed and care of the hogs at issue. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Producers on Lakeside's fraudulent misrepresentation claim where Lakeside was unable to establish that Producers made any false representations; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the fraudulent nondisclosure claim where Producers was under no legal obligation to disclose information to Lakeside; held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Lakeside's expert testimony where such testimony was not needed to inform the district court on the legal issues; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Producers on the issue of negligent misrepresentation where Producers was not in the business or profession of supplying information or guidance to Lakeside but rather the two conducted themselves at arm's length; and held that it was not unjust to allow Producers to retain the benefit of these particular happenings when a shortfall existed, as it was not inequitable to allow a contracting party the right to fulfillment of contractual obligations, which in this case included the payment of fees contemplated by the Hog Program.Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
Civil case - Fraud. With respect to plaintiff's claim that defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning payment for hog services and feed, plaintiff failed to show that defendant made any false representations concerning payment of the amounts due, and the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on the claim; plaintiff failed to establish fraudulent nondisclosure because defendant did not owe plaintiff any legal duty to disclose the information at issue; district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's expert's testimony regarding ownership status of the hogs, as the information was not necessary to determine the issues; plaintiff's claim of negligent misrepresentation failed as the parties dealt at arm's length; claim for unjust enrichment rejected.